https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity

The End of History and the Last Man

In recent years there has been a growing body of literature within political science and international studies that directly and indirectly uses, discusses and analyzes the processes involved in lesson-drawing, policy convergence, policy diffusion and policy transfer. While the terminology and focus often vary, all of these studies are concerned with a similar process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting.

Given that this is a growing phenomenon, it is something that anyone studying public policy needs to consider. As such, this article is divided into four major sections. The first section briefly considers the extent of, and reasons for, the growth of policy transfer. The second section then outlines a framework for the analysis of transfer. From here a third section presents a continuum for distinguishing between different types of policy transfer. Finally, the last section addresses the relationship between policy transfer and policy “failure.”

Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy‐Making

It comes as something ofa surprise to reflect that the New York Review ofBooks is now over twenty years old. Even people of my generation (that is, old enough to remember the revolutionary 196os but not young enough to have taken a very exciting part in them) think of the paper as eternally youthful. In fact, it has gone through years of relatively quiet life, yet, as always in a competitive journalistic market, it is the controversies that attract the interest of the reader and to which the history (especially an admittedly impressionistic survey that tries to include something of the intellectual context in which a journal has operated) must give some attention. Not all the attacks which the New York Review has attracted, both early in its career and more recently, are worth more than a brief summary. What do we now make, for example, of Richard Kostelanetz's forthright accusation that 'The New York Review was from its origins destined to publicize Random House's (and especially [Jason] Epstein's) books and writers'?1 Well, simply that, even if the statistics bear out the charge (and Kostelanetz provides some suggestive evidence to support it, at least with respect to some early issues), there is nothing surprising in a market economy about a publisher trying to push his books through the pages of a journal edited by his friends. True, the New York Review has not had room to review more than around fifteen books in each issue and there could be a bias in the selection of

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3507774.pdf

The New York Review of Books

Economic sanctions have become a popular multilateral and bilateral enforcement measure in the 1990s. Their efficacy is doubtful along with their moral superiority over military force. Substantial suffering by vulnerable groups in Iraq, former Yugoslavia, and Haiti has led to a 'bust' for this foreign policy tool. Sanctions can be designed to be more effective and less inhumane than they are at present, but much more research is required about their precise impact on civilians and on targeted regimes. Early post-Cold War euphoria is giving way to more realistic and subtle assessments of the pluses and minuses of economic and military coercion.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/424530.pdf

Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: Weighing Humanitarian Impulses

International relations scholars generally argue that norm-building requires a number of successful cases. This essay, however, is about three concrete examples when virtually everyone—except for the state citing it—disputes the legitimacy of applying the emerging norm of the responsibility-to-protect (R2P). Misrepresentations of humanitarian intentions can be disingenuous and geopolitically driven, as was the case for the US and UK war in Iraq and the Russian claim to protect South Ossetians, or disinterested but wrong, as was the French invocation of R2P for Burma. These cases suggest that misuses can advance norms through contestation and conceptual clarification. Because contestation prompts debates, denial, and tactical concessions on the norm in question, it is insightful to compare and contrast R2P's development against the early stages of two theoretical models that deal most explicitly with contestation: the “spiral” of human rights change and the “cascade” of norm development.

Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral?

List of Boxes, Tables, and Figures Series Editors' Foreword Louis Emmerij, Richard Jolly, and Thomas G. Weiss Foreword John Gerard Ruggie Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction: The Problematique of Global Governance 1. Tracing the Origins of an Idea and the UN's Contribution Part 1. International Security 2. The Use of Force: War, Collective Security, and Peace Operations 3. Arms Control and Disarmament 4. Terrorism Part 2. Development 5. Trade, Aid, and Finance 6. Sustainable Development 7. Saving the Environment: The Ozone Layer and Climate Change Part 3. Human Rights 8. Generations of Rights 9. Protecting against Pandemics 10. The Responsibility to Protect Notes Index About the Authors About the United Nations Intellectual History Project

Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey

Can changing Security Council membership or procedures improve its credibility? With one exception, similar efforts since the council's inception in 1945 have repeatedly proved implausible; today, the uncontested power of the United States makes them largely irrelevant.

http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~russellw/Teaching_files/Weiss%20-%20UN%20Security%20Council%20Reform.pdf

The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform

With the exception of Raphael Lemkin's efforts on behalf of the 1948 Genocide Convention, no idea has moved faster in the international normative arena than “the responsibility to protect” (RtoP), which was formulated in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Friends and foes have pointed to the commission's conceptual contribution to reframing sovereignty as contingent rather than absolute, and to establishing a framework for forestalling or stopping mass atrocities via a three-pronged responsibility—to prevent, to react, and to rebuild. But until the international military action against Libya in March 2011, the sharp end of the RtoP stick—the use of military force—had been replaced by evasiveness and skittishness from diplomats, scholars, and policy analysts.

/pdf/rtop-alive-and-well-after-libya-4n2doad0za.pdf

Thomas G. Weiss

Papers

Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: Weighing Humanitarian Impulses

Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral?

Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey

The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform

RtoP Alive and Well after Libya